-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 224
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move usersim code into a separate repo #2596
Conversation
ac0479e
to
0f65744
Compare
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Per Anurag: the code was added earlier to execute the 2 paths in native module, and it is not needed anmore IIRC, as the "DISPATCH" code has been removed now from the native module Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2596 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.78% 81.10% -2.69%
==========================================
Files 157 146 -11
Lines 29177 27605 -1572
==========================================
- Hits 24447 22389 -2058
- Misses 4730 5216 +486
|
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
@@ -76,6 +77,9 @@ _netebpf_ext_helper::_netebpf_ext_helper( | |||
nmr_hook_client_handle = std::make_unique<nmr_client_registration_t>(&hook_client, client_context); | |||
nmr_hook_client_handle_initialized = true; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
_fwp_engine::get()->set_sublayer_guids( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: I think the _fwp_engine::test_*
functions in usersim/src/fwp_um.cpp
should be part of this repository.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will deal with that in the next PR in the series. But offhand, I probably disagree. Anything that allows a unit test to exercise WFP apis in a way that isn't ebpf specific would help any WFP client driver developer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes this is not blocking for this PR (I have already approved the PR).
Description
Addresses a portion of #2586
This step is usable on its own, but additional simplifications will come in a future PR.
Testing
Existing tests are updated.
Documentation
No impact.